Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2021 | 讬状讙 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Yoma 43

Today’s daf is sponsored by Temimah Pilichowski for a refuah shleima for Stuart Pilichowski, Shmuel ben Feyge Rachel. And by Shira Krebs “in honor of the hebrew birthday of my #1 daf yomi supporter, my sister, Rena Berger.”

The gemara goes on to extrapolate all the words in the section about the red heifer that indicate a particular person and explain in some cases whether this verse is different from the previous verse and it is a different person who can be involved or is it continuing the same meaning as the previous verse and the same person can do that action as well? Who is able to do each step of the process? The gemara returns to the controversy between Rav and Shmuel regarding whether or not a non-kohen can slaughter the red heifer. Rabbi Yochanan has a different position than them. Why in the first confession did the high priest not confess also for all the kohanim and only did so in the second confession? The mishnah continues with the continued work of the High Priest with the incense and brings a list of things that were done differently on Yom Kippur than on other days of the year.

讚讗驻讬拽 讞诪讜专 讘讛讚讛

where one took out a donkey with it. According to the first tanna, this would be permitted, since there is no concern that people would think that the wrong cow or cows were slaughtered. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this rationale is irrelevant, even this case would be excluded by the word 鈥渋t.鈥

讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗讞专转 注诪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诇专讘 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬讛讗 讝专 砖讜讞讟 讜讗诇注讝专 专讜讗讛

The Gemara expounds the next phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 means that 鈥渋t,鈥 the red heifer, should be slaughtered and that no other should be slaughtered with it. And the next phrase: 鈥淏efore him鈥; according to Rav, it means that he should not divert his attention from it. According to Shmuel, it indicates that a non-priest can slaughter it and Elazar the priest observes.

讜诇拽讞 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诪讛 讘讗爪讘注讜 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 诇讗诇注讝专 诇专讘 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara proceeds to expound the next verse: 鈥淎nd Elazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger鈥 (Numbers 19:4). What is indicated by specifying Elazar? According to Shmuel, since the phrase 鈥渂efore him鈥 in the previous verse indicates that Elazar himself did not need to slaughter the red heifer but that rather a non-priest could, it is necessary in this stage to return it to Elazar, to indicate that he must himself take the blood with his finger. According to Rav, this is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, as both verses indicate that the rite may be performed only by a priest. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it serves to teach that even a common priest may perform the rite.

讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇专讘 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛 讚驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讻讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara expounds another verse in the same passage: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and a strip of crimson鈥 (Numbers 19:6). What is indicated by specifying that this is done by the priest? According to Shmuel, who holds that in the previous stage the verse stated: 鈥淎nd Elazar the priest鈥 to indicate that Elazar, i.e., a deputy High Priest, was required to perform that stage, the use of the term 鈥渢he priest鈥 in this stage indicates that a deputy High Priest is no longer required for this stage; rather, even a common priest may perform this stage. According to Rav, who holds that even in the previous stage a common priest may perform the rite, the term 鈥渁nd the priest鈥 is necessary here, as it could enter your mind to say that since these stages do not involve the heifer itself, they do not require a priest at all. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not correct.

讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讛讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讛谉 注讚 讛注专讘 讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara expounds the next verse: 鈥淭hen the priest shall wash his clothes鈥 (Numbers 19:7). Why is there a need to restate the involvement of the priest? To teach that he should be in his priestly state, i.e., wearing his priestly garments and fit for service. In the next phrase of the verse, the involvement of the priest is restated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:7). This repetition is to teach that even in future generations the rite is to be performed only by a priest in his priestly state.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛砖转讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara analyzes this derivation according to the two sides of the dispute the Gemara cited previously: It works out well according to the one who said that for future generations the rite of the red heifer may be performed by a common priest. It is therefore understandable that the verse emphasizes that the priest has to perform the rite in his priestly state. But according to the one who said that for future generations it must be performed by a High Priest, now that we require the High Priest, is it necessary to mention that he must be in his priestly state? Yes, sometimes there is a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, and the verse nevertheless unnecessarily writes it explicitly.

讜讗住祝 讗讬砖 讟讛讜专 讗转 讗驻专 讛驻专讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讛谞讬讞 讬爪讗讜 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚注转 诇讛谞讬讞

The Gemara expounds another verse in the passage: 鈥淎nd a man who is pure shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and place them鈥 (Numbers 19:9). The verse states 鈥渁 man鈥 to qualify a non-priest to perform this stage of the rite. The verse states 鈥減ure鈥 to qualify even a woman to perform this stage. The verse states 鈥渁nd place鈥 to indicate that only one who has the basic level of intelligence to be able to intentionally place the ashes in their place is qualified to do so, thereby excluding a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, since they do not have the basic level of intelligence to be able to intentionally place the ashes in their place.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara prefaces its exposition of another verse in the passage, which details the sanctification of the ashes of the red heifer, by citing a dispute concerning that stage: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Everyone is qualified to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer, i.e., to pour the water over them, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda qualifies a minor, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专讬驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讛谞讱 讚驻住诇讬 诇讱 讘讗住讬驻讛 驻住诇讬 诇讱 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讜讛谞讱 讚讗讻砖专讬 诇讱 讘讗住讬驻讛 讗讻砖专讬 诇讱 讘拽讬讚讜砖

What is the reason of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall take for the impure of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and he shall put running water thereto in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). The word 鈥渢hey鈥 is understood as referring to those who perform the previous stage of gathering the ashes. The verse therefore indicates: Those whom I disqualified for you for gathering the ashes, I have disqualified for you also for sanctification; and those whom I have qualified for you for gathering the ashes, I have qualified for you for sanctification.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谉 讚驻住诇讬 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讻讗 讻砖专

And why does Rabbi Yehuda not accept this reasoning? If so, let the verse say: And he shall take. What is the meaning of 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥? The use of the plural serves to qualify additional people who were excluded from the previous stage. It means that with regard to even a minor, who I disqualified there with regard to collecting the ash, here, with regard to sanctification, he is qualified.

讗砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讜谞转谉 讜诇讗 讜谞转谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞 讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜

From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that a woman is unfit? The verse states 鈥渁nd he shall put鈥 and not: And she shall put. How do the Rabbis interpret this verse? They assume that if the Merciful One had written: And he shall take鈥nd he shall put, I would have said the rite is not valid unless one person takes and the same one puts the ashes in the water. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥 to indicate that the taking and the putting need not necessarily be executed by the same individual.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讘讬 转专讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚

And if the Merciful One had written two plural forms such as: And they shall take鈥nd they shall put, I would have said the rite is not valid unless two people take and two people put. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥 and 鈥渁nd he shall put鈥 (Numbers 19:17), to indicate that even if two take and one puts the rite is nevertheless valid.

讜诇拽讞 讗讝讜讘 讜讟讘诇 讘诪讬诐 讗讬砖 讟讛讜专 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The Gemara continues to expound the verses: 鈥淎nd a man who is pure shall take hyssop and dip it into the water鈥 (Numbers 19:18). According to the Rabbis, who hold that the sanctification of the ashes in the previous stage may be performed by woman but not a minor, the word 鈥渕an鈥 indicates that for this stage, the taking and dipping of hyssop, only a man is qualified but not a woman, and the word 鈥減ure鈥 is written to qualify even a minor for this stage. And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds the previous stage may be performed by a minor but not by a woman, the word man indicates that for this stage only an adult is qualified but not a minor, and the word pure is written to qualify even a woman for this stage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 讞讜抓 诪讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 (砖讬砖) 讘讜 讚注转 讗砖讛 诪住讬注转讜 讜诪讝讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna in tractate Para: Everyone is qualified to sprinkle the purification waters, except for a person whose sexual organs are concealed [tumtum], and a hermaphrodite [androginus], and a woman. And concerning a minor who has a basic level of intelligence, a woman may assist him and he sprinkles the purification waters. The mishna disqualifies a woman for the sprinkling but qualifies a minor.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree. The mishna implies that even he agrees with the mishna鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗 驻诇讬讙

Abaye said: Since the Master, i.e., Ulla, said: In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse precludes the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage, whereas in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and also apply in subsequent stages. Since it is clear from the opinion of the Rabbis that the verse describing the taking and dipping of hyssop is to be understood as indicating a change of conditions, perforce Rabbi Yehuda must also assume that there is a change in conditions, as explained above. Therefore, he certainly disagrees with the mishna鈥檚 ruling, even though his dissenting opinion is not recorded in the mishna.

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara expounds the next verse: 鈥淎nd the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The previous verse already states that the one who sprinkles must be ritually pure. This requirement is repeated here to make the following inference: He is pure, which by inference suggests that initially he was ritually impure and has now removed that impurity. This fact is significant only if the reference is to a person who has still not completed his purification process. As such, the repetition of the requirement that the one who sprinkles be pure teaches about one who immersed that day, that he is qualified to sprinkle the waters in the rite of the red heifer. This is one who was rendered ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure only upon nightfall.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 讛讜讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻专讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讗讬 讚诪住讬拽 转注诇讗 诪讘讬 讻专讘讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗

Rabbi Asi said: When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish analyzed the passage of the red heifer to try to identify a consistent pattern in the way the implied conditions should be understood, i.e., when they exist to preclude conditions implied in previous stages, and when they imply conditions that remain in force in subsequent stages. They brought up from it only as the amount of earth that the fox brings up from a plowed field, meaning that they reached few conclusions. Rather, they said in conclusion that in some verses the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse preclude the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse; whereas in other verses, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and apply also in subsequent verses. However, there is no obvious pattern of how to determine which verse employs which style.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛砖讞讬讟讜转 讻砖讬专讜转 讘讝专 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 驻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛

A tanna who would recite baraitot in the study hall recited a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: All slaughterings are valid if performed by a non-priest, except that of the red heifer. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go out and teach that baraita outside the house of study, but not inside, as it is incorrect. We have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇转谞讗 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan was very convinced of this. Needless to say that he did not listen to that tanna, but he did not even listen to his own teacher, who maintained the same opinion as cited by the tanna, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The slaughtering of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. Rabbi Yo岣nan added: And I say it is valid, for we have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.

讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 砖谞讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜讬讚讜讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜讬讚讜讬 砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱

The mishna states: The High Priest comes and stands next to his bull a second time and confesses: Please God, I have sinned鈥 and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people. The Gemara asks: What is different about the first confession that he made over the bull, in which he did not say: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people, and what is different about the second confession in which he said: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people?

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谞转 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讗 讝讻讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇 讬讘讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That is the method to which the attribute of justice lends itself: Better that an innocent person should come and gain atonement on behalf of the guilty, and a guilty person should not come and gain atonement on behalf of another guilty person. At the first confession, the High Priest has still not achieved atonement for himself. Therefore, it is more appropriate for him to wait until the second confession to seek atonement for the priesthood.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟讜 讜拽讘诇 讘诪讝专拽 讗转 讚诪讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇诪讬 砖讛讜讗 诪诪专住 讘讜 注诇 讛专讜讘讚 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专讜砖 谞讟诇 诪讞转讛 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讜驻谞讛 讙讞诇讬诐 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讞讜转讛 诪谉 讛诪注讜讻诇讜转 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讜讬专讚 讜讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 讛专讜讘讚 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讘注讝专讛

MISHNA: The High Priest would slaughter the bull and receive its blood in a bowl, and give it to the one who stirs it. The stirrer would stand on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary and stir the blood lest it coagulate while the High Priest sacrificed the incense. He would take a coal pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear the upper layer of coals to this side and to that side and with the coal pan scoop up coals from among the inner, consumed coals. And he would then descend and place the coal pan with the coals on the fourth row of tiles in the Temple courtyard.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讻住祝 讜诪注专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住

The mishna comments on some of the contrasts between the service and protocols followed on Yom Kippur and those followed throughout the rest of the year: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讜诪注专讛 诇转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 住讗讛 讜诪注专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住

On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with one of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yosei says a variation of this distinction: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of a se鈥檃, which is six kav and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with a coal pan of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讻讘讚讛 讜讛讬讜诐 拽诇讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讬讚讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讜讻讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讝讛讘讛 讬专讜拽 讜讛讬讜诐 讗讚讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐

On every other day, the coal pan was heavy. But on this day it was light, so as not to tire the High Priest. On every other day, its handle was short, but on this day it was long so that he could also use his arm to support its weight. On every other day, it was of greenish gold, but on this day it was of a red gold. These are the statements of Rabbi Mena岣m.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪拽专讬讘 驻专住 讘砖讞专讬转 讜驻专住 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讜诐 诪讜住讬祝 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讚拽讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讚拽讛 诪谉 讛讚拽讛

On every other day, a priest sacrificed a peras, half a maneh, of incense in the morning, and a peras in the afternoon, but on this day the High Priest adds an additional handful of incense and burns it in the Holy of Holies. On every other day, the incense was ground fine as prescribed by the Torah, but on this day it was superfine.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诇讬谉 讘诪讝专讞讜 砖诇 讻讘砖 讜讬讜专讚讬谉 讘诪注专讘讜 讜讛讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 讘讗诪爪注 讜讬讜专讚 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 讘讗诪爪注 讜讬讜专讚 讘讗诪爪注

On every other day, priests ascend on the eastern side of the ramp and descend on its western side, but on this day the High Priest ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle. Rabbi Yehuda says: There was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle, due to his eminence.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 讜讛讬讜诐 诪谉 讛拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪谉 讛拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘

On every other day, the High Priest sanctifies his hands and his feet from the laver like the other priests, and on this day he sanctifies them from the golden flask, due to the eminence of the High Priest. Rabbi Yehuda says there was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always sanctifies his hands and his feet from the golden flask.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗专讘注 诪注专讻讜转 讜讛讬讜诐 讞诪砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖诇砖 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖转讬诐 讜讛讬讜诐 砖诇砖

On every other day there were four arrangements of wood there, upon the altar, but on this day there were five; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day there were three, but on this day there were four. Rabbi Yehuda says: On every other day there were two, but on this day there were three.

讙诪壮 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬 砖诇 讛讬讻诇

GEMARA: The mishna states that the blood of the bull is stirred by a priest standing on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary, while the High Priest sacrifices the incense in the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: But is it not written 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out鈥 (Leviticus 16:17). How then could the stirrer be standing in the Sanctuary? Rav Yehuda said: Emend and teach the mishna as saying: The fourth row of tiles of the Sanctuary, i.e., outside the Sanctuary on the fourth row from its entrance.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out.鈥 The verse prohibits anyone to be inside the Tent of Meeting during the burning of the incense.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 39 -44 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are continuing to learn about the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. The High Priest draws lots...
alon shvut women

Para Adumah

Yoma Daf 43聽 Analyzing each pasuk of the parasha on Para Adumah Mishna from the shchita of the Kohen Gadol鈥檚...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 43: How Is This Day Different from All Other Days?

The need to read the parah adumah verses very carefully, in terms of establishing what the halakhah is, and all...

Yoma 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 43

讚讗驻讬拽 讞诪讜专 讘讛讚讛

where one took out a donkey with it. According to the first tanna, this would be permitted, since there is no concern that people would think that the wrong cow or cows were slaughtered. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this rationale is irrelevant, even this case would be excluded by the word 鈥渋t.鈥

讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗讞专转 注诪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诇专讘 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬讛讗 讝专 砖讜讞讟 讜讗诇注讝专 专讜讗讛

The Gemara expounds the next phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 means that 鈥渋t,鈥 the red heifer, should be slaughtered and that no other should be slaughtered with it. And the next phrase: 鈥淏efore him鈥; according to Rav, it means that he should not divert his attention from it. According to Shmuel, it indicates that a non-priest can slaughter it and Elazar the priest observes.

讜诇拽讞 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诪讛 讘讗爪讘注讜 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 诇讗诇注讝专 诇专讘 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara proceeds to expound the next verse: 鈥淎nd Elazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger鈥 (Numbers 19:4). What is indicated by specifying Elazar? According to Shmuel, since the phrase 鈥渂efore him鈥 in the previous verse indicates that Elazar himself did not need to slaughter the red heifer but that rather a non-priest could, it is necessary in this stage to return it to Elazar, to indicate that he must himself take the blood with his finger. According to Rav, this is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, as both verses indicate that the rite may be performed only by a priest. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it serves to teach that even a common priest may perform the rite.

讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇专讘 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛 讚驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讻讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara expounds another verse in the same passage: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and a strip of crimson鈥 (Numbers 19:6). What is indicated by specifying that this is done by the priest? According to Shmuel, who holds that in the previous stage the verse stated: 鈥淎nd Elazar the priest鈥 to indicate that Elazar, i.e., a deputy High Priest, was required to perform that stage, the use of the term 鈥渢he priest鈥 in this stage indicates that a deputy High Priest is no longer required for this stage; rather, even a common priest may perform this stage. According to Rav, who holds that even in the previous stage a common priest may perform the rite, the term 鈥渁nd the priest鈥 is necessary here, as it could enter your mind to say that since these stages do not involve the heifer itself, they do not require a priest at all. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not correct.

讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讛讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 讜讟诪讗 讛讻讛谉 注讚 讛注专讘 讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara expounds the next verse: 鈥淭hen the priest shall wash his clothes鈥 (Numbers 19:7). Why is there a need to restate the involvement of the priest? To teach that he should be in his priestly state, i.e., wearing his priestly garments and fit for service. In the next phrase of the verse, the involvement of the priest is restated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:7). This repetition is to teach that even in future generations the rite is to be performed only by a priest in his priestly state.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛砖转讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara analyzes this derivation according to the two sides of the dispute the Gemara cited previously: It works out well according to the one who said that for future generations the rite of the red heifer may be performed by a common priest. It is therefore understandable that the verse emphasizes that the priest has to perform the rite in his priestly state. But according to the one who said that for future generations it must be performed by a High Priest, now that we require the High Priest, is it necessary to mention that he must be in his priestly state? Yes, sometimes there is a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, and the verse nevertheless unnecessarily writes it explicitly.

讜讗住祝 讗讬砖 讟讛讜专 讗转 讗驻专 讛驻专讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讛谞讬讞 讬爪讗讜 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚注转 诇讛谞讬讞

The Gemara expounds another verse in the passage: 鈥淎nd a man who is pure shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and place them鈥 (Numbers 19:9). The verse states 鈥渁 man鈥 to qualify a non-priest to perform this stage of the rite. The verse states 鈥減ure鈥 to qualify even a woman to perform this stage. The verse states 鈥渁nd place鈥 to indicate that only one who has the basic level of intelligence to be able to intentionally place the ashes in their place is qualified to do so, thereby excluding a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, since they do not have the basic level of intelligence to be able to intentionally place the ashes in their place.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara prefaces its exposition of another verse in the passage, which details the sanctification of the ashes of the red heifer, by citing a dispute concerning that stage: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Everyone is qualified to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer, i.e., to pour the water over them, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda qualifies a minor, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专讬驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讛谞讱 讚驻住诇讬 诇讱 讘讗住讬驻讛 驻住诇讬 诇讱 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讜讛谞讱 讚讗讻砖专讬 诇讱 讘讗住讬驻讛 讗讻砖专讬 诇讱 讘拽讬讚讜砖

What is the reason of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall take for the impure of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and he shall put running water thereto in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). The word 鈥渢hey鈥 is understood as referring to those who perform the previous stage of gathering the ashes. The verse therefore indicates: Those whom I disqualified for you for gathering the ashes, I have disqualified for you also for sanctification; and those whom I have qualified for you for gathering the ashes, I have qualified for you for sanctification.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谉 讚驻住诇讬 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讻讗 讻砖专

And why does Rabbi Yehuda not accept this reasoning? If so, let the verse say: And he shall take. What is the meaning of 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥? The use of the plural serves to qualify additional people who were excluded from the previous stage. It means that with regard to even a minor, who I disqualified there with regard to collecting the ash, here, with regard to sanctification, he is qualified.

讗砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讜谞转谉 讜诇讗 讜谞转谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞 讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖拽讬诇 讞讚 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜

From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that a woman is unfit? The verse states 鈥渁nd he shall put鈥 and not: And she shall put. How do the Rabbis interpret this verse? They assume that if the Merciful One had written: And he shall take鈥nd he shall put, I would have said the rite is not valid unless one person takes and the same one puts the ashes in the water. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥 to indicate that the taking and the putting need not necessarily be executed by the same individual.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讘讬 转专讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚

And if the Merciful One had written two plural forms such as: And they shall take鈥nd they shall put, I would have said the rite is not valid unless two people take and two people put. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渁nd they shall take鈥 and 鈥渁nd he shall put鈥 (Numbers 19:17), to indicate that even if two take and one puts the rite is nevertheless valid.

讜诇拽讞 讗讝讜讘 讜讟讘诇 讘诪讬诐 讗讬砖 讟讛讜专 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 讟讛讜专 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The Gemara continues to expound the verses: 鈥淎nd a man who is pure shall take hyssop and dip it into the water鈥 (Numbers 19:18). According to the Rabbis, who hold that the sanctification of the ashes in the previous stage may be performed by woman but not a minor, the word 鈥渕an鈥 indicates that for this stage, the taking and dipping of hyssop, only a man is qualified but not a woman, and the word 鈥減ure鈥 is written to qualify even a minor for this stage. And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds the previous stage may be performed by a minor but not by a woman, the word man indicates that for this stage only an adult is qualified but not a minor, and the word pure is written to qualify even a woman for this stage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 讞讜抓 诪讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 (砖讬砖) 讘讜 讚注转 讗砖讛 诪住讬注转讜 讜诪讝讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna in tractate Para: Everyone is qualified to sprinkle the purification waters, except for a person whose sexual organs are concealed [tumtum], and a hermaphrodite [androginus], and a woman. And concerning a minor who has a basic level of intelligence, a woman may assist him and he sprinkles the purification waters. The mishna disqualifies a woman for the sprinkling but qualifies a minor.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree. The mishna implies that even he agrees with the mishna鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗 驻诇讬讙

Abaye said: Since the Master, i.e., Ulla, said: In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse precludes the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage, whereas in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and also apply in subsequent stages. Since it is clear from the opinion of the Rabbis that the verse describing the taking and dipping of hyssop is to be understood as indicating a change of conditions, perforce Rabbi Yehuda must also assume that there is a change in conditions, as explained above. Therefore, he certainly disagrees with the mishna鈥檚 ruling, even though his dissenting opinion is not recorded in the mishna.

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara expounds the next verse: 鈥淎nd the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The previous verse already states that the one who sprinkles must be ritually pure. This requirement is repeated here to make the following inference: He is pure, which by inference suggests that initially he was ritually impure and has now removed that impurity. This fact is significant only if the reference is to a person who has still not completed his purification process. As such, the repetition of the requirement that the one who sprinkles be pure teaches about one who immersed that day, that he is qualified to sprinkle the waters in the rite of the red heifer. This is one who was rendered ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure only upon nightfall.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 讛讜讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻专讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻诪讗讬 讚诪住讬拽 转注诇讗 诪讘讬 讻专讘讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗

Rabbi Asi said: When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish analyzed the passage of the red heifer to try to identify a consistent pattern in the way the implied conditions should be understood, i.e., when they exist to preclude conditions implied in previous stages, and when they imply conditions that remain in force in subsequent stages. They brought up from it only as the amount of earth that the fox brings up from a plowed field, meaning that they reached few conclusions. Rather, they said in conclusion that in some verses the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse preclude the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse; whereas in other verses, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and apply also in subsequent verses. However, there is no obvious pattern of how to determine which verse employs which style.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛砖讞讬讟讜转 讻砖讬专讜转 讘讝专 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 驻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛

A tanna who would recite baraitot in the study hall recited a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: All slaughterings are valid if performed by a non-priest, except that of the red heifer. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go out and teach that baraita outside the house of study, but not inside, as it is incorrect. We have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇转谞讗 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan was very convinced of this. Needless to say that he did not listen to that tanna, but he did not even listen to his own teacher, who maintained the same opinion as cited by the tanna, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The slaughtering of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. Rabbi Yo岣nan added: And I say it is valid, for we have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.

讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 砖谞讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜讬讚讜讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜讬讚讜讬 砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱

The mishna states: The High Priest comes and stands next to his bull a second time and confesses: Please God, I have sinned鈥 and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people. The Gemara asks: What is different about the first confession that he made over the bull, in which he did not say: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people, and what is different about the second confession in which he said: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people?

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讱 讛讬讗 诪讚转 讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谞转 诪讜讟讘 讬讘讗 讝讻讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇 讬讘讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讞讬讬讘

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That is the method to which the attribute of justice lends itself: Better that an innocent person should come and gain atonement on behalf of the guilty, and a guilty person should not come and gain atonement on behalf of another guilty person. At the first confession, the High Priest has still not achieved atonement for himself. Therefore, it is more appropriate for him to wait until the second confession to seek atonement for the priesthood.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟讜 讜拽讘诇 讘诪讝专拽 讗转 讚诪讜 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇诪讬 砖讛讜讗 诪诪专住 讘讜 注诇 讛专讜讘讚 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专讜砖 谞讟诇 诪讞转讛 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讜驻谞讛 讙讞诇讬诐 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讞讜转讛 诪谉 讛诪注讜讻诇讜转 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讜讬专讚 讜讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 讛专讜讘讚 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讘注讝专讛

MISHNA: The High Priest would slaughter the bull and receive its blood in a bowl, and give it to the one who stirs it. The stirrer would stand on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary and stir the blood lest it coagulate while the High Priest sacrificed the incense. He would take a coal pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear the upper layer of coals to this side and to that side and with the coal pan scoop up coals from among the inner, consumed coals. And he would then descend and place the coal pan with the coals on the fourth row of tiles in the Temple courtyard.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讻住祝 讜诪注专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住

The mishna comments on some of the contrasts between the service and protocols followed on Yom Kippur and those followed throughout the rest of the year: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讜诪注专讛 诇转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 住讗讛 讜诪注专讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住

On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with one of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yosei says a variation of this distinction: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of a se鈥檃, which is six kav and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with a coal pan of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讻讘讚讛 讜讛讬讜诐 拽诇讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讬讚讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讜讻讛 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讝讛讘讛 讬专讜拽 讜讛讬讜诐 讗讚讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐

On every other day, the coal pan was heavy. But on this day it was light, so as not to tire the High Priest. On every other day, its handle was short, but on this day it was long so that he could also use his arm to support its weight. On every other day, it was of greenish gold, but on this day it was of a red gold. These are the statements of Rabbi Mena岣m.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪拽专讬讘 驻专住 讘砖讞专讬转 讜驻专住 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讜诐 诪讜住讬祝 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讚拽讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讚拽讛 诪谉 讛讚拽讛

On every other day, a priest sacrificed a peras, half a maneh, of incense in the morning, and a peras in the afternoon, but on this day the High Priest adds an additional handful of incense and burns it in the Holy of Holies. On every other day, the incense was ground fine as prescribed by the Torah, but on this day it was superfine.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诇讬谉 讘诪讝专讞讜 砖诇 讻讘砖 讜讬讜专讚讬谉 讘诪注专讘讜 讜讛讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 讘讗诪爪注 讜讬讜专讚 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 讘讗诪爪注 讜讬讜专讚 讘讗诪爪注

On every other day, priests ascend on the eastern side of the ramp and descend on its western side, but on this day the High Priest ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle. Rabbi Yehuda says: There was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle, due to his eminence.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讻讬讜专 讜讛讬讜诐 诪谉 讛拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪谉 讛拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘

On every other day, the High Priest sanctifies his hands and his feet from the laver like the other priests, and on this day he sanctifies them from the golden flask, due to the eminence of the High Priest. Rabbi Yehuda says there was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always sanctifies his hands and his feet from the golden flask.

讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗专讘注 诪注专讻讜转 讜讛讬讜诐 讞诪砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖诇砖 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 砖转讬诐 讜讛讬讜诐 砖诇砖

On every other day there were four arrangements of wood there, upon the altar, but on this day there were five; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day there were three, but on this day there were four. Rabbi Yehuda says: On every other day there were two, but on this day there were three.

讙诪壮 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬 砖诇 讛讬讻诇

GEMARA: The mishna states that the blood of the bull is stirred by a priest standing on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary, while the High Priest sacrifices the incense in the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: But is it not written 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out鈥 (Leviticus 16:17). How then could the stirrer be standing in the Sanctuary? Rav Yehuda said: Emend and teach the mishna as saying: The fourth row of tiles of the Sanctuary, i.e., outside the Sanctuary on the fourth row from its entrance.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out.鈥 The verse prohibits anyone to be inside the Tent of Meeting during the burning of the incense.

Scroll To Top